Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Samsung Phone Users Perturbed to Find They Can't Delete Facebook

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–478 of 478 posts

Re: Samsung Phone Users Perturbed to Find They Can't Delete Facebook

#471

Post by chrstphrknwtn »

Kiro wrote: post #464
chrstphrknwtn wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My telephone

I want a phone without voice. I hate when people call me and I never call anyone. I wouldn't want to be friends with anyone forcing me to call them to interact.

Yeah, I've also thought a phone without voice would be great; an iPod touch with data sort of thing.

Having said that, voice calls are simply more productive for quite a few things.

Making "must not interact via telephony" a condition of friendship seems a bit much. Is meeting in person also out of the question?

Re: Samsung Phone Users Perturbed to Find They Can't Delete Facebook

#472

Post by Kiro »

chrstphrknwtn wrote: post #471
Kiro wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want a phone without voice. I hate when people call me and I never call anyone. I wouldn't want to be friends with anyone forcing me to call them to interact.

Yeah, I've also thought a phone without voice would be great; an iPod touch with data sort of thing. Having said that, voice calls are simply more productive for quite a few things. Making "must not interact via telephony" a condition of friendship seems a bit much. Is meeting in person also out of the question?

Sorry, I exaggerated for effect. However, I do have a phobia of phone calls and very seldom pick up the phone so if that would be the only way to communicate with someone I'm sure the friendship would die by itself.

Re: Samsung Phone Users Perturbed to Find They Can't Delete Facebook

#473

Post by partiallypro »

bogomipz wrote: post #359
partiallypro wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And...the 2012 article doesn't actually put Facebook under a critical microscope like it is today. In fact, at the time it was viewed and covered as political genius. So, you sort of proved my point. Examples: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/magazine/the-obama-campai... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/17/obama-campaign... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/14/obama-digital-...

>"And...the 2012 article doesn't actually put Facebook under a critical microscope like it is today." Maybe reread your own comment above where you stated the concern of "increased scrutiny" and not criticality. The link is evidence of of increased media scrutiny. From seven years ago no less. Specifically it discusses FB's emerging place as a political channel. Scrutiny and criticality are orthogonal concepts.

Scrutiny requires criticality.

Re: Samsung Phone Users Perturbed to Find They Can't Delete Facebook

#474

Post by gregknicholson »

ghettoimp wrote: post #437
gregknicholson wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How very generous of them! Not getting at you personally here :) just... it's astonishing how quickly we've gotten used to the idea that you'll pay hundreds of dollars for a licence to use a device that you're not really in control of.

Hyperbole... You see a lack of control over your own device. I see someone else managing my device for me so that I don't have to think about it. You see the app store locking you in. I see it protecting me from malware and keeping me secure. I know you're right and I should care more. You can appreciate how nice it would be to just let someone else figure it all out and take care of it for you. "A man is rich in pro…

I agree it's good to have someone else looking after your device for you.

But Samsung's flavour of Android is not that. You have to pay extra attention because you can't trust it not to trick you into something you don't want — “agreeing” to adverts or sending personal data. You're constantly batting away flies. It's user-hostile, not user-friendly.

This is why I prefer Fedora to Windows: the intent of the person managing my device for me is to make a useful tool (not to enhance my experience in association with select commercial partners), and this aligns with my goals.

Peace of mind is precisely why well-maintained free software is more user-friendly than consumer shovelware.

(My job involves testing a website. This week I used a Samsung Galaxy S5. Peel Remote™ has to be an extremely elaborate parody… right?)

Re: Samsung Phone Users Perturbed to Find They Can't Delete Facebook

#475

Post by culot »

apatters wrote: post #454
culot wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> force their shitty software down people's throats every day Did Facebook force OEMs to include their software on their devices? Isn't it more likely that OEMs are getting paid for the placement and the blame for its inclusion lies with OEMs?

Ok, fair enough. The article isn't about Facebook forcing their shitty software down our throats (which they still do, via notification and email spam). It's about Facebook paying OEMs to force its shitty software down our throats. IMO not really a meaningful distinction in this context though.

I think it is meaningful distinction in this context. The responsibility for the inclusion of these apps lies solely on the OEMs and carriers. If there's beef to had then it has to be laid at the feet of the OEMs and carriers.

Re: Samsung Phone Users Perturbed to Find They Can't Delete Facebook

#476

Post by chrismeller »

qwerty456127 wrote: post #467
dijit wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your friends are more technical than 99% of the population of earth. I applaud you for having friends who are so technically literate. I think you would do well to remember the rest of the human race though.

I'm curious what portion of people lack a geek friend they can trust to set-up whatever for them.

I'm curious what portion of people you think even know that jailbreaking exists, let alone why they would want it done on their phone. This is, without any sort of exaggeration, a 1% issue.

Re: Samsung Phone Users Perturbed to Find They Can't Delete Facebook

#477

Post by ForHackernews »

int_19h wrote: post #446
pmontra wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, that's really small. Actually it's what phones used to be before 2007.

I have the original Jelly phone, and it's actually smaller than Nokia phones I used in pre-smartphone days. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/jellyphone/jelly-the-sm...

How's the battery life? I got the Atom even though it's uglier because I read bad reviews of the Jelly's battery.

Re: Samsung Phone Users Perturbed to Find They Can't Delete Facebook

#478

Post by cannonedhamster »

bobthepanda wrote: post #368
rchaud wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I consider Photos and essential app to the phone. So do I, but OS vendors are making that experience worse by 'integrating' it to some cloud bullshit whether I want it to or not. My Galaxy S7 (with all the bloatware the article mentions) was replaced with an "Android One" device from Nokia. First thing I noticed on the Nokia was that the only gallery app was Google Photos, which I want nothing to do with. The Galax…

You can turn off iCloud sync in iOS, and you can even do it for Photos specifically. I do because I don't care to have it backed up to iCloud, which I don't pay for.

You know what you can't do with iOS? Use a 3.5mm jack. :D Realistically though I found iOS to be too restrictive and I dislike that there's only one theme that's available. It was far too bright for my eyes at night even with it turned all the way down. Checking my phone at night would often wake my wife. I can't believe that iOS doesn't have a dark theme.
Post reply on HN